coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
3.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1955 and lives in Bolu.
4.  By an order of the Turkish General Staff dated On 9 May 2002, the applicant's access to the army's social facilities (orduevi) was prohibited due to his non-compliance with the rules of conduct set out in the Internal Service Regulation of the Turkish Armed Forces (“the Internal Service Regulation”). It appears that while lodging in an army guesthouse in Ankara, the applicant had insisted on performing the Muslim prayer (namaz) in a communal area despite warnings. It further appears that the order of the Turkish General Staff was never served on the applicant.
5.  On 24 December 2002 the applicant was refused entry to the army's social facilities in Ankara on the basis of the order of the Turkish General Staff.
6.  On 9 January 2003 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence and requested the annulment of the order of the Turkish General Staff, along with the reinstatement of his right to benefit from the social facilities of the army.
7.  The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the course of the proceedings, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.
8.  On 3 October 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's case. The court held that the decision of the Turkish General Staff had been in compliance with the Internal Service Regulation, considering in particular that the applicant had refused to perform his prayer in the area allocated to him and had acted in a disorderly fashion and argued with the officer who had warned him. It appears that this decision was served on the applicant on 26 October 2003.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Košice.
5.  On 6 March 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against several individuals and State organs, requesting that the Košice II District Court declare null and void a contract by which she had transferred her title to a flat to two of the defendants. She also asked the court to order another defendant to vacate the flat and leave it at the applicant's disposal.
6.  The file was transferred to the Košice I District Court on 19 April 2001 for reasons of jurisdiction.
7.  On 10 February 2003 she complained to the President of the Košice I District Court about the length of the proceedings.
8.  On 3 July 2003 the District Court admitted another defendant to the proceedings. The latter appealed and the file was transferred to the Košice Regional Court.
9.  On 22 September 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the length of the proceedings.
10.  On 7 October 2003 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 3 July 2003.
11.  On 25 April 2005 the District Court found in the applicant's favour. It discontinued the proceedings in respect of two State organs. Following an appeal, the case was transferred to the Regional Court on 25 October 2005.
12.  On 19 September 2006 the applicant inquired about any obstacles preventing the Regional Court from dealing with the case.
13.  On 9 October 2010 she complained to the President of the Regional Court about the length of the proceedings.
14.  On 31 May 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment, except of the part concerning the discontinuation of the proceedings, and remitted the case to the District Court.
15.  On 4 May 2009 the District Court found against the applicant.
16.  The applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.
17.  On 23 December 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the overall length of proceedings.
18.  On 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's length of proceedings complaint inadmissible. It held that the part of the complaint concerning the proceedings before the District Court was manifestly ill-founded, as this period of the proceedings had already ended and the District Court could no longer violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent.
19.  It expressed the view that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies in respect of the period of the proceedings before the Regional Court, as she had not lodged a complaint of their length to the President of the Regional Court. The decision stated that the applicant's complaint of 22 September 2003 could not be considered as such remedy because it had been lodged during another stage of the proceedings, when the Regional Court was examining the first-instance decision to admit another defendant to the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The applicant was living in Grozny, Chechnya. Fearing for his life he left for Azerbaijan in August 2000, from where he flew to Istanbul on 4 September 2000.
7.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant and a number of other individuals were taken into custody by police officers of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, within the framework of the security measures implemented for the 2004 NATO summit in Istanbul.
8.  On 25 June 2004 the applicant was transferred to the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul Security Headquarters with a view to deportation. On 29 June 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court issued a decision of non-prosecution, holding that there was no evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant or other individuals taken into detention in connection with the 2004 NATO summit.
9.  The applicant then continued to be held in the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul Security Headquarters under section 23 of Law no. 5683 as an administrative measure pending deportation proceedings.
10.  On 25 September 2004 the applicant was released and since then has been living in Istanbul on renewable temporary residence permits.
11.  The applicant alleged that he had been detained for a period of ninety-one days in an overcrowded room at the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, which had no windows, hence no natural light. According to the applicant it had thirty-six beds for a number of asylum seekers varying from 100 to 200. Due to the large number of asylum seekers present in the establishment the applicant, on numerous occasions, had been forced to sleep on the ground without sheets or blankets. He had not been allowed to get any fresh air or exercise throughout his stay. The hygienic conditions were extremely poor, in particular the showering facilities. There were three toilets and two showers serving a minimum of one hundred asylum seekers. The food served was insufficient and was the same every day. In support of his complaints the applicant presented drawings of the facility and referred to the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), in particular CPT/Inf (2002)8 dated 24 April 2002 and CPT/Inf (2000)17 dated 7 December 2000.
12.  The Government stated that the applicant had been held in the men's section of the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, which measured 220 square metres. There were three toilets, two showers, twenty bunk beds, a television, two telephones, two air conditioners and a cafeteria. According to the Government all the rooms were sufficiently lit and ventilated. They were cleaned twice a day. Breakfast, lunch and dinner were served every day. Asylum seekers could be visited by their relatives in the visitors' room. Those who needed medical help were taken to the local State hospital and their medical expenses were born by the State.
5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Frankolovo.
6.  On 7 March 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant's employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.
7.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages for the injuries sustained. He also sought an exemption from paying court fees.
8.  Between 27 December 1999 and 28 February 2001 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence four times.
9.  The first hearing was held on 27 September 2000.
10.  On 27 October 2000 the court appointed a medical expert. On 18 December 2000 the appointed expert submitted his report.
11.  On 4 April 2001 the court held another hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 October 2001.
12.  On 7 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). He also requested the first-instance court to rectify its judgment.
13.  On 9 November 2001 the first-instance court rectified the judgment of 4 April 2001.
14.  On 14 May 2003 the Celje Higher Court upheld the applicant's appeal in part and modified the first-instance court's judgment accordingly. That decision was served on the applicant on 5 June 2003.
15.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), which was rejected on 1 April 2004 as the value of the claim fell below the statutory threshold. That decision was served on the applicant on 23 April 2004.
16.  On 23 May 2007 the respondent Government were given notice of the application. The Government was asked to provide information as to whether section 25 of the 2006 Act applied in respect of the present case, which would enable the applicant to avail himself of domestic settlement proceedings before the State Attorney's Office (see Relevant domestic law below).
17.  Subsequently, on 12 October 2007, the Government submitted that section 25 of the 2006 Act was not applicable in the present case since the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed in the impugned domestic proceedings. Therefore, the Government refused to offer the applicant a settlement proposal under section 25 of the 2006 Act.
18.  The applicant did not comment on this issue.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budennovsk of the Stavropol Region.
5.  On 5 February 1998 the applicant was stopped by the police and brought to a sobering-up centre. He was examined by a doctor who found that he was sober. The applicant was immediately released.
6.  On 18 November 1998 the applicant sued the local police department for compensation for unlawful arrest. The applicant’s complaint was admitted by the Budennovsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region (“the Town Court”). The first hearing was scheduled for 25 December 1998, but on that date it did not take place. No action was taken on the case until December 2001.
7.  On 25 December 2001 the Town Court identified the Ministry of the Interior Affairs as the respondent and involved the local police department as a third party in the proceedings.
8.  On 30 December 2002 the Town Court held in a default judgment that the applicant’s arrest had been unlawful and partly allowed his claim for compensation.
9.  On 29 January 2003 the Town Court granted an extension of the time allowed for submission by the respondent of their grounds of appeal.
10.  On 6 February 2003 the Stavropol Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) overturned the judgment on appeal for failure to notify the respondent about the hearing in a timely manner and remitted the case to the first instance.
11.  On 20 February 2003 the Town Court again allowed the applicant’s claim in part, but on 23 April 2003 the judgment was set aside on appeal by the Regional Court for failure to involve the finance authorities in the proceedings. The appeal court required a new hearing. It also delivered a special ruling in which it reprimanded the judge in charge of the applicant’s case for breaches of the procedural time-limits for consideration of the case.
12.  On 6 June 2003 the Town Court judge withdrew from the proceedings.
13.  On 4 July 2003 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated.
14.  On 20 August 2003 the Regional Court set aside the judgment on appeal and allowed the applicant’s claim in part. It held that his arrest had been unlawful and ordered that the Budennovsk town administration pay the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB).
15.  On an unspecified day the town administration lodged an application for supervisory review of the decision of 20 August 2003.
16.  On 8 December 2003 the Presidium of the Regional Court granted the application, quashed the judgment of 20 August 2003 for failure to notify the town administration about the hearing and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
17.  On 1 March 2004 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 4 July 2003 and remitted the case to the Town Court.
18.  On 7 May 2004 the Town Court designated the Ministry of Finance of the Stavropol Region as a co-respondent.
19.  On 12 July 2004 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and ordered that the Ministry of Finance of the Stavropol Region pay the applicant RUB 15,000.
20.  On 8 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
5.  The applicants are Russian citizens whose names and years of birth are tabulated below.
6.  The fact of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarized as follows.
7.  The applicants were claimants in civil proceedings concluded by judgments in their favour.
8.  Subsequently, on the defendants' initiatives, Presidia of regional courts concerned quashed these final judgments by way of supervisory review on the grounds that the inferior courts had incorrectly applied the domestic law or wrongly assessed the evidence.
9.  The judgments' particulars are tabulated below.
10.  In the case of Mr Bobarykin subsequently, on 16 March 2007, the applicant signed an agreement under which the local authorities allocated him a place for a new garage and paid a compensation for demolition of the old one.
11.  In the case of Ms Kolesnikova the regular payments were made under the final judgment up until it was quashed via supervisory review.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Vinnytsya.
5.  In 1983, while undergoing training at the SU-26 company, the applicant had an accident. As a result of this accident he was classed as a disabled person.
First set of proceedings
6.  On 20 November 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsya against the successor of the company responsible for the accident, Vinnytsya specialised collective company no. 26, (“the company”), seeking a ruling obliging the latter to allocate him money to purchase a car for disabled people. He also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him. The final decision in the case was given by the Supreme Court on 29 December 2002.
Second set of proceedings
7.  On 5 June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsya seeking a ruling obliging the company to allocate him money to purchase a car for disabled people.
8.  On 8 November 2002 the court declined to consider this claim.
9.  On 15 January 2003 the Vinnitsa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of the first-instance court and remitted it to the first-instance court.
10.  On 29 December 2003 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claim. On 19 April 2004 the Vinnytsya Regional Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
11.  On 16 November 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Athens.
5.  On 15 June 1999 he brought an action for declaratory judgment (αναγνωριστική αγωγή) before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. In particular, he asked the court to declare that the Welfare fund of the Staff of the Greek Railways Organisation (Ταμείο Πρόνοιας Προσωπικού ΟΣΕ), which is a legal person governed by public law, owed him € 3,901.10. This sum corresponded to an allowance the applicant alleged he was entitled to when he retired.
6.  On 30 May 2001 the action was dismissed (judgment no. 3648/2001).
7.  On 10 April 2002 the applicant filed an appeal before the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
8.  By judgment dated 11 March 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the findings of the First Instance Court (judgment no. 898/2004).
9.  On 8 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on cassation with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 6 November 2007 he withdrew his appeal and a relevant report, to that effect, was delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court on 19 November 2007.
6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bielsko - Biała.
7.  On 8 June 2006 the Bielsko-Biała Social Security Board refused to grant the applicant a disability pension. On 20 March 2007 the Bielsko‑Biała Regional Court dismissed his appeal against that decision. On 9 October 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's further appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 November 2007 and two-month time-limit for lodging of a cassation appeal started to run on that date.
8.  On 9 November 2007 the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 27 November 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal granted his request for legal aid and requested the Katowice Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the case. Subsequently, as the first lawyer assigned by the Bar Association suffered from certain health problems at that time, on 23 January 2008 the Katowice Bar Association assigned another lawyer, Mr J.R., to the case. He was served with the letter informing him of the assignment on 28 January 2008.
9.  Subsequently the lawyer requested the Court of Appeal to serve on him its judgment of 9 October 2007. The judgment with the written grounds was served on him on 14 February 2008.
10.  In a letter to the applicant dated 29 February 2008 the lawyer explained in detail why he had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Košice.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 16 July 1985 the applicant lodged an action with the Vranov nad Topľou District Court seeking division of matrimonial property.
7.  In the subsequent period two first-instance judgments of 30 June 1987 and 31 October 1989 were quashed by decisions of the Košice Regional Court of 30 December 1987 and 21 May 1990 an the case was remitted to the District Court.
8.  On 20 November 1990 the Košice Regional Court decided that the first-instance judge was biased and on 17 December 1992 it transferred the case to the Prešov District Court for a decision.
9.  On 21 October 1998 the applicant challenged the judges of the Prešov District Court.
10.  On 5 November 1998 the Regional Court decided that, except for one judge, the judges of the Prešov District Court were not biased.
11.  On 24 November 1998 the applicant challenged another       first-instance judge. By a decision of the Regional Court of 6 October 1999 the judge was excluded from the case.
12.  On 31 August 2001 the Prešov District Court decided to obtain an expert opinion on the value of a real estate.
13.  On 17 July 2002 the Prešov Regional Court, following the defendant's and the applicant's appeal, upheld the above decision.
14.  On 3 September 2003 the Prešov District Court delivered          a judgment.
15.  On 21 October 2003 the applicant appealed and challenged another   first-instance judge.
16.  On 9 February 2005 the Prešov Regional Court decided that the judge was not biased and overturned the first-instance judgment. The decision became final on 11 March 2005.
17.  On 7 April 2005 the applicant appealed on points of law.
18.  On 28 November 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
19.  The applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining that the District Court and the Regional Court had violated his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
20.  On 1 March 2006 the Constitutional Court decided that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It also decided that the Prešov Regional Court had not violated the above right. The Constitutional Court awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's costs and expenses.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Sebastopol.
5.  In January 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the Nakhimovskyy Court against his former employer, the Akademstroy Company, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a result of an occupational injury. In the course of the proceedings, he also lodged a similar claim against several local departments of the Social Insurance Fund.
6.  On 17 November 2004 the court delivered a judgment in the case. On 27 October 2005 the Sebastopol Court of Appeal quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the same court.
7.  On 16 July 2007 the Nakhimovskyy Court allowed in part the applicant’s claim and awarded him certain amounts in health insurance payment arrears, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court fees. It also ordered the recalculation of the applicant’s insurance payments.
8.  On 31 January 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment in the part concerning the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court fees and upheld the remainder of the judgment.
9.  On 24 March 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions in the part concerning the award in respect of insurance payments and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the first-instance court, before which the proceedings are still pending.
10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant twice amended his claims. He lodged his appeal in cassation not in accordance with the procedural requirements and the Supreme Court gave him a new time-limit for rectifying it. Five hearings were adjourned as the applicant failed to attend them. Fifteen hearings were adjourned mainly due to the respondents’ failure to attend them or due to the absence of judges. Two forensic expert examinations were ordered by the courts (between 25 September 2001 and 28 February 2002 and between 2 October 2003 and 25 November 2003).
11.  The applicant submitted that he had not attended only two hearings, without providing any further details.